Page:Prerogatives of the Crown.djvu/115

Ch. VII. Sec. II.] Pardons^ Reprieves, ^c. 95 Accomplices who are, to use a technical expression, admitted to be King's evidence, have no legal claim to a pardon : nor has the magistrate before whom the original examination is taken, any power to promise them one on condition of their becoming witnesses {a). In such case, however, and in others where the party's evidence has been made use of, and he appears to have acted ingenuously, he has an equitable claim to the royal mercy {b) ; and it is usually extended to him with refer- ence to the old doctrine of approvement. Where offenders have by any of these means a legal right to a pardon, the Court of King's Bench will bail them, in order to afford them an opportunity of applying for a pardon (c) : and even where offenders have merely an equitable claim under the circumstances to the royal mercy, that Court will put off their trials for the same purpose {d). It may not be amiss briefly to touch upon the antient sup- posed right of the King to grant suspensions, or dispensations of the laws, non obstante aliquo statuto in contrarium^ before the commission of an offence ; or in other words, suffering a person to commit a breach of the laws with impunity, by rendering him dispunishable {e). This was a prerogative which almost all our antient Kings exercised ; it was replete with absurdity, and might be converted to the most dangerous purposes. It was always regarded with jealousy, and being carried by the Judges in the reign of James the Second (/), to an extent which placed the King above the laws ; it was enacted by the Bill of Rights, 1 Wm. and Mary, sess. 2. c. 2. that no dispen- sation by non obstante, of or to any statute, or any part thereof, shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute." This provision, we may observe, only relates to dispensations of statutes, and cannot affect dispensations of common law offences. A distinction was formerly drawn between those offences which were mala in se, as for instance, murder, steal- ing, or perjury, and those which were merely 7nala prohibita, or in other words, contrary to Act of Parliament (^'). The (a) Cowp. 336. 1 Leach, 121. Elem, ch. 19. 11 Co. 88. Dyer, 54, ib) Cowp. 340. 1 Leach, 125. Wil- pi. 17. iiams J. Pardon, IL (/) Sir Edward Hale's Case, 2 Show, (c) Cowp. 334. 1 Leach, 118. 475.pl. 440. Comb. 21. Ciift 153. id) Ibid. {g) Vaugh. 330 to 359. ije) Fincli. Law, 81, 234. Bacon, power